Austrian State Protection Law meets with resistance

(in deutscher Sprache & english translation) Before the end of autumn 2015, the new Staatsschutzgesetz (State Protection Law) is meant to be passed by the Austrian Parliament. Criticism of the proposed law comes from all sectors of society.

4. The BVT may surveil anyone to assert the probability of an attack on the constitution. The only prerequisite to do so is suspected risk. There are no clear rules on where or how the reasoning for the existence of specific suspected risks has to be written down or presented.

5. The BVT may access data from all governmental bodies and all corporations without the agreement of a judge or prosecutor. The only control instance is the internal Legal Protection Officer of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (BMI); the BVT may deny him access to records on grounds of protecting the identities of witnesses.

6. The area of responsibility oft he BVT vastly exceeds defense against terrorism. Anyone who points out shortcomings as a whistleblower or attends demonstrations against right-wing extremists at the Hofburg (the residence of the Austrian President) or in favor of animal protection becomes a target of the agency.

9. Austria will soon have ten new intelligence agencies, as – in addition to the BTV - all nine State Offices for the Protection of the Constitution will obtain the same authority. Every governor (corresponding to the office of Ministerpräsident in Germany) will thus soon have his own intelligence agency.

Ilya Trojanov: I support the resistance against this nonsensical law because, in order for us to stay a halfway free society, there has to be an inalienable core of civil freedoms that are uncontested and unchanged – no matter the technical or political development.

Katrin Kneissl: I probably support the petition because I’m still an old-school legal expert who worries about the fundamental principle of the constitutional state, that is, the division of powers; I’m a longtime fan of Montesquieu, and for me, the rule of law begins with independent institutions supervising eachother.

Maria Wittmann-Tiwald: The State Protection Law, as it is planned, causes major discomfort. In my opinion, the foundations of this law are not sufficiently clarified: it specifies extensive surveillance measurements. But something that has been demanded for several years, that is, an evaluation of previous surveillance measurements, has not happened at all, and that is irresponsible.

Gebrüder Moped: The first thing that troubles me about surveillance, without fundamentally questioning it – because, sure, there will be situations to look closely at – but one thing is important to me: who is watching?

01:40 Was stört besonders an den Staatsschutzplänen?- What’s most disturbing about the plans for State Protection?

Jana Herwig: There are a number of things about the upcoming State Protection Law that bother me, and I think that what is being prepared can be compared to the unjust state that was, e. g., the GDR. I think that comparisons to the Stasi are appropriate in this case.

Tomas Zierhofer-Kin: What bothers me most is that it becomes possible to intrude into various spheres without a court order, and that is, of course – in addition to a lot of other things in this country – a huge danger at this point, because at the end, you provide political powers with a toy that can be used in the most undemocratic and dictatorial ways, which is something I’m really afraid of.

Kathrin Kneissl: The las is probably also too ambitious and a bit unrealistic, considering that the executive lacks both the expertise and the personnel resources to even classify so-called “developments endangering the constitution”.

Maria Wittmann-Tiwald: The circle of people who might be targeted by surveillance under the State Protection Law is basically not defined, because the definition is weak enough to throw the gates wide open to abuse.

03:08 Botschaften an die Nationalratsabgeordnete zum geplanten Gesetz- Messages to the members of the National Assembly about the proposed law

Peter Purgathofer: Dear Members of the National Assembly, this is a really bad law. It is not thoughtful, it consists of things somebody invented, that are phrased and considered from one point of view, but not from the perspectives of all the other parties and stakeholders.

Gebrüder Moped: In fact, it is absurd, why do we even have to think about it: Does anyone want to be under general suspicion? How can anyone answer to this be yes!? It’s really sad to need to talk about that.

Ilya Trojanov: Actually, we can look back at history, relatively enlightend and undeceived, and say: How could the parlamentarians at the time vote for this law or the other? How could politicians not contradict, not resist, when obviously fatal developments were set into motions? And the State Protection Law is a fatal development; and I would urge each politician to take one step back, and to think about the long-term, serious damage to our democracy, and to imagine to be asked, one day: Where were you, and what did you do, when our free basic order was slowly hollowed out and dissolved?

Tomas Zierhofer-Kin: For me, as a festival curator, the main thing is to never underestimate one’s public, people are not as stupid as one might think, or as some people think – one can challenge people. And politicians should not think so either: People are ready for civil society.

Peter Purgathofer: We should be overflowing with joy because something like AKVorrat exists in Austria. So, I’m one of those people who, when AKVorrat is attacked, will protectively position themselves in front of it like this (shaking his fists) and I will say: “Hands off my AKVorrat!”